Which of these Two Commentaries Will Fit Me best?

I have decided to start building Logos credit in order to be able to purchase one of these two, apparently well liked commentary sets.

They are Word Biblical and New International Commentary.

Which do you think that, based on the information that I supply, would best suit me? I know that it is difficult to really do what I have asked but will appreciate any recommendations that are given.

Affiliation: Conservative Anabaptist
Formal training in religion or languages: None
Education: High School
Interests: In depth New Testament studies with general Old Testament studies. All studies are personal or small group.
Minister: No, simple layperson
Even though I do not know the original languages, I do enjoy reading about decisions that the translators had to make and why they made them.
When scripture is practiced and applied in more than one way, I would like a commentary that covers as many of them as possible.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ken McGuire

Word is one of the best values for commentary set in Logos. But it quotes the original languages in the original language and alphabet. If you know them, this is better, but for you it might be. Also the format takes a bit to get used to.

NICNT is highly recommended here, with many good reasons. But it is more expensive and only covers the NT. Personally I have WBC in Logos and a few volumes of NICNT in print.

SDG

Ken McGuire

Jack Caviness

Affiliation: Conservative Anabaptist

Not sure about Anabaptist content, but NIC is more conservative than Word, but like any multi-volume set, quality varies in both.

But it is more expensive and only covers the NT.

NIC is available as NT, OT, or both. Yes, it is more expensive than Word, but IMO it is better and much more conservative in general—but like I said, quality varies in both sets.

BTW—I do own—and use—both sets

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550080#Comment_550080

Ken and Jack. Thanks for the responses thus far. I edited my OP to include both of the New and Old Testaments of the NIC.

My OP only included the NICNT. Sorry for the confusion.

Price really is not the issue right now since I plan on building my Logos credit over several months and am patient enough to wait until I get enough. Thanks again for the replies and any future recommendations!

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550082#Comment_550082

BTW, are you aware that the Believers Church commentary set is Anabaptist? But it does not have the in-depth coverage of NIC and Word.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550084#Comment_550084

NICNT is definitely more suited to lay people with no academic training and/or knowledge of original languages. It is also more predictably in agreement with Evangelical views, which may not always be an asset, but will please anyone who wants just that.

You may also want to consider the Tyndale Commentary series. It is way cheaper, conservative, smaller in size yet quite informative.

As for being an Anabaptist, this should not matter. These series are not denominational and, to the extent that it is believed that they deal with Scripture fairly, should be useful for anyone who wants to learn what the Bible says.

GregW

Hi Rick - I have (and use) both sets in Logos. There are excellent commentaries in each series. I would personally go with NICOT/NICNT as the layout of them (IMHO) is better than the rather awkward way the content of the Word commentaries is arranged. They are, however, rather more expensive. You are fortunate in that both sets are now available volume-by-volume, so you could always buy one from each set, then get the whole set (Dynamic pricing certainly applies for WBC, and I'm sure Sales would give you the amount off for a NICOT/NICNT volume). You could also return the one from the series you chose not to go with and get your money back so long as you returned it in 30 days. I'm sure nobody at Logos would doubt the ethics of you doing so for such a significant purchase.

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550084#Comment_550084

BTW, are you aware that the Believers Church commentary set is Anabaptist?

Yes, but as you noted, it really does not go deep enough for me when I want to dig deeper. I have found that it seldom goes into various opinions and uses something like "This is admittedly a difficult verse...." and gently brings the discussion to an end. I want to know exactly why it is a difficult verse [:D]

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550087#Comment_550087

With your suggestions, it looks as if I should prepare to save enough for the New International Commentary. The use of non-transliterated Greek and Hebrew would hinder me, I am sure.

Maybe, I will purchase the NT first and then aim for the OT.

Thanks so much!

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550098#Comment_550098

Here is an excerpt from WBC that may help guide you. Just opened the volume and scrolled to the top of an article.

Outward vs. Inward Righteousness (6:1–18)

Almsgiving (6:1–4)

Bibliography
Betz, H. D. “A Jewish-Christian Cultic Didache in Matt. 6:1–18: Reflections and Questions on the Historical Jesus.” In Essays on the Sermon on the Mount. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. 55–69. Büchler, A. “St Matthew VI 1–6 and Other Allied Passages.” JTS 10 (1909) 266–70. Dietzfelbinger, C. “Die Frömmigkeitsregeln von Mt 6:1–18 als Zeugnisse frühchristlicher Geschichte.” ZNW 75 (1984) 184–200. George, A. “La justice à faire dans le secret (Matthieu 6,1–6 et 16–18).” Bib 40 (1959) 509–98. Gerhardsson, B. “Geistiger Opferdienst nach Matth 6,1–6.16–21.” In Neues Testament und Geschichte. FS O. Cullmann, ed. H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke. Zürich: Theologischer, 1972. 69–77. Klostermann, E. “Zum Verständnis von Mt 6,2.” ZNW 47 (1956) 280–81. McEleney, N. J. “Does the Trumpet Sound or Resound? An Interpretation of Matthew 6,2.” ZNW 76 (1985) 43–46. Minear, P. S. “Keep It Secret.” In Commands of Christ. 47–68. Nagel, W. “Gerechtigkeit—oder Almosen? (Mt 6,1).” VC 15 (1961) 141–45. Oakley, I. J. W. “ ‘Hypocrisy’ in Matthew.” IBS 7 (1985) 118–38. Schweizer, E. “Der Jude im Verborgenen …, dessen Lob nicht von Menschen, sondern von Gott kommt.” In Matthäus und seine Gemeinde. 86–97.

Translation

1“Be careful not to practice your pietya before others in order to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward with your heavenly Father. 2When you give alms, therefore, do not blow a trumpet to attract attentionb as do the hypocrites in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by others. Trulyc I say to you, they are having their reward at that moment. 3But as for you, when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your almsgiving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, willd reward you.”e

Notes

a. δικαιοσύνην, lit. “righteousness.” The majority of (late) MSS (L W Z Θ f13 TR syp,h mae) have ἐλεημοσύνην, “almsgiving,” perhaps by the influence of v 2. א1 syc bo have δόσιν, “giving.”

b. ἔμπροσθέν σου, lit. “before you.”

c. א* and a few other late MSS insert a second ἀμήν, “truly.”

d. D W f1 TR syp, h add αὐτός before the verb, producing a slightly emphatic “he.”

e. A majority of late MSS (L W Θ TR it sys,p,h) add ἐν τῷ φανερῷ, “in the open,” as a counterbalance to ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, “in secret.” As Metzger points out, however, the superiority of the Father’s reward to human approval is important, not its public or nonpublic character (TCGNT, 15). Cf. Note e* on v 6.

Form/Structure/Setting

A. We now come to a new section of the sermon (6:1–18) devoted to three important exercises of the religious life (H. D. Betz refers to the passage as “a Jewish-Christian cultic Didache”): almsgiving (vv 2–4), prayer (vv 5–6), and fast ing (vv 16–18). These practices do not themselves come under criticism, nor are they regulated, but rather the motivation underlying them is scrutinized. The entire section is introduced by the general principle enunciated in v 1, a kĕlāl sentence, i.e., a form introducing the themes of the following section. The formal parallelism of the sections indicates that these three sections constitute one entity in the sermon despite the lengthy parenthetical section containing the Lord’s Prayer (vv 7–15).
B. These three main sections (vv 2–4, 5–6, 16–18) are without Synoptic parallels and, as their stylized form suggests, probably were derived as a unit from the special oral tradition available to the evangelist. Into the second member of this unit, however, the evangelist has inserted other traditional material having to do with prayer, including the Lord’s Prayer (vv 7–15). Only here do we encounter parallel Synoptic material. The traditional Jewish linking of the three items—almsgiving, prayer, and fasting—is found (but in reverse order) in POxy 654.5 (cf. Gos. Thom. 6).
C. The parallelism of the three sections is readily apparent from the verbatim recurrence of the words ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ἀπέχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν, “truly I say to you, they have their reward” (vv 2, 5, and 16), as well as the repetition of the concluding formula, τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, “to your Father who is secret” (vv 6 and 18, but the latter has the synonym κρυφαίῳ for κρυπτῷ; v 4 has only the last three words ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, “in secret,” which are applied to the giving of alms rather than to the Father), followed by the sentence in verbatim agreement (except again for the use of κρυφαίῳ in v 18): καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι, “and your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (vv 4, 6, 18). In addition to these verbatim parallels, there is considerable similarity in the structure of the three passages. Each (i.e., vv 2–4; 5–6; 16–18) contains the following, with only slight variations: (1) an introductory ὅταν with the subjunctive, “whenever you …” (singular in v 2; plural in vv 5 and 16), followed by a negative imperative, “do not” (formed using successively the subjunctive, future indicative, and imperative moods), a ὡς clause “as (or like) the hypocrites,” and a ὅπως, “so that,” clause that describes the intent of the hypocrites; (2) the “they have their reward” saying in the present tense, addressed to a plural “you”; (3) a strongly adversative clause beginning with the words σὺ δέ, “but you” (always in the singular), in which the proper way to act is described, followed by a ὅπως, “so that,” clause (but lacking in v 6) emphasizing “in secret”; and (4) the concluding saying, introduced by the ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν formula (“truly I say to you”): “your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (singular). For wordplay in a possible Aramaic tradition underlying the passage, see M. Black (Aramaic, 176–78). As an outline of the present pericope the following may be suggested: (1) a general warning about doing righteous deeds to be seen by others (v 1); (2) the specific example of almsgiving (v 2); and (3) the proper performance of almsgiving: “in secret” (vv 3–4).

Comment

1 The opening verse stands almost as a rubric over the entire passage of vv 1–18. The warning (προσέχετε, “beware,” “be careful”) here admonishes the readers to avoid performing their righteousness in order to be seen by others. The expression “to do righteousness” (δικαιοσύνην … ποιεῖν) is Hebraic (e.g., Gen 18:19; Ps 106:3; Isa 56:1) and is found also in the NT in 1 John 2:29; 3:7, 10; and Rev 22:11. The word δικαιοσύνη here is to be understood in the broad sense of “righteousness” (cf. 5:20), of which three basic aspects of Jewish piety (cf. Tob 12:8–10)—almsgiving, prayer, and fasting—are specific examples (on “righteousness,” see Comment on 3:15). Again, as in the antitheses (5:21–48), the supreme importance of motive or inner thought emerges. Although δικαιοσύνη can also mean “almsgiving” and thus some have tried to associate this verse with vv 2–4, the formal analysis (see above, Form/Structure/Setting §C) shows that v 1, rather than being a part of the section that follows, is better understood as an introduction to all three sections (vv 2–4; 5–6; 16–18). The deeds may be thought of as the Christian’s self-offering in “spiritual service” and may correspond to the demand of the Shema (Deut 6:4–5) to love God with all your heart (prayer), soul (fasting), and might (almsgiving), with the order changed to move from the easier to the harder (thus Gerhardsson). The phrase ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, “before others,” is intensified by the following πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, “to be seen by them.” This is an emphasis found in all three following sections: cf. ὅπως δοξασθῶσιν ὑπὸ τὼν ἀνθρώπων, “so that they might be glorified by others” (v 2); ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, “so that they might be seen by others” (in verbatim agreement in vv 5 and 16; cf. the corresponding negative ὅπως μὴ φανῇς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, “so that you may not be seen by others,” in v 18). Those who do their righteous deeds in order to be observed by others are described as “hypocrites” (ὑποκριταί) in each of the three following sections (vv 2, 5, and 16). Matthew almost certainly has in mind the Pharisees, who are repeatedly described as “hypocrites” in chap. 23 and of whom it is also said (23:5) that “they do all their works” πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, “to be seen by others”—almost exactly the same language as in the present passage.
If the disciples perform acts of righteousness “to be seen by others,” Jesus says to them, μισθὸν οὐκ ἔχετε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν τῷ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, “you do not have a reward with your Father who is in heaven.” This anticipates the considerable stress on reward in the three following sections, in each of which Jesus says concerning those who display their piety “they have their reward” (vv 2, 5, and 16), and of those who practice their piety in secret that “your Father will reward you” (vv 4, 6, and 18). For the expression “your Father in heaven,” see 5:16. On μισθός, which occurs more often in Matthew than any other Gospel, see 5:12.
2 Here, “whenever you give alms” (ὅταν … ποιῇς ἐλεημοσύνην) is in the second person singular, unlike in the second and third sections where the “whenever” clause is addressed to the second person plural (vv 5 and 16). The words ποιεῖν ἐλεημοσύνην (also in v 3) mean literally “to do an act of mercy,” but by the intertestamental period they had become a technical expression for almsgiving (cf. Tob 1:3, 16; 4:7–8; Sir 7:10; in the NT, see Acts 9:36; 10:2; 24:17). Performing deeds of mercy, or doing kindness, was one of the pillars of Judaism (m. ˒Abot 1:2). It is difficult to know whether the reference to blowing a trumpet is intended literally or metaphorically.

Luz denies rather strongly that a trumpet was actually blown at the giving of a major gift, taking the words as a metaphor of irony (so too, Gnilka; Gundry; Guelich, Sermon; France; Davies-Allison are somewhat less confident in their denial). It is still possible—despite the lack of solid evidence—that a trumpet was blown to draw attention to very large gifts (thus Schlatter; Bonnard; Hill), in order perhaps to encourage others to do similarly; on the other hand, perhaps the association was made because trumpets were blown at fasts (see Büchler), at a time when large gifts were given to avert disaster (see G. Friedrich, TDNT 7:87–88). Or perhaps the sound is that of coins being thrown into the six trumpet-shaped money chests placed in the temple specifically for the collection of alms (the “Shofar-chests” of m. Šeqal. 2:1; see Danby’s note [The Mishnah] on that text) in order to attract the attention of others (so McEleney). The point, in any case, is clear: the hypocrites did all they could to draw attention to their generosity.

The sense in which these persons are ὑποκριταί, “hypocrites,” is that their real motivation in their apparently pious conduct is self-glorification (ὅπως δοξασθῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, “so that they might be glorified by others”) ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις, “in the synagogues and in the streets,” i.e., in the places of worship and in public (cf. the similar phrase in v 5).

The word ὑποκριτής in Hellenistic Greek commonly meant “actor,” i.e., one who performs in front of others, pretending to be something he or she is not. In the NT it is used consistently in a negative sense. Matthew captures the duplicity inherent in hypocrisy when he juxtaposes the word with the quotation of Isa 29:13, “this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (15:8). In addition to the three references in this section of Matthew (vv 2, 5, 16), the word occurs in 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; and 24:51. Note especially too the six occurrences in chap. 23, directed against the Pharisees, 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. See U. Wilckens, TDNT 8:559–71.

The response of Jesus to this self-glorifying activity is introduced with the formula of emphasis: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, “truly I say to you [plural]” (cf. vv 5 and 16). This formula, which previously occurred in 5:18 and 26, is found some thirty-two times in Matthew, more than twice as often as in any other Gospel. The use of the present tense in ἀπέχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν, “they are having their reward,” implies that this temporary praise from others is all the reward they will receive, in deliberate contrast to the statement at the end of each of the three sections that promises a future, eschatological reward (vv 4, 6, 18). In the rabbinic doctrine concerning rewards, almsgiving is promised a high return (see Str-B 4:552–53). Jesus’ remark that those who give alms for the praise of others already have their reward must have had a shocking effect on his hearers.
3–4 In the strong adversative sentence, Jesus says to the disciples (“when you [here and in all three applications in the singular] give alms”) that almsgiving must not be an act done to draw the attention and admiration of others (for Jewish parallels, cf. Str-B 1:391–92). Far from almsgivers calling attention to their act, they should do so unself-consciously, with the left hand taking no heed of what the right hand does (cf. Gos. Thom. 62). The speculation that the left hand stands for one’s best friend, as in a contemporary Arabic proverb (Grundmann), is hardly convincing; the same must be said for Gundry’s suggestion that giving with one and not two hands indicates unobtrusive giving.
Jesus emphasizes, “so that” (ὅπως), the disciple’s almsgiving must be ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, “in secret.” This is the point of the pericope and of all three sections. Righteous deeds are to be done in secret, beyond the attention of any onlookers. These deeds will not escape the attention of God (cf. 1 Sam 16:7): “your Father who sees in secret [ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ] will reward [ἀποδώσει] you.” Schweizer (“Der Jude”) finds a direct connection between this teaching and Paul’s reference in Rom 2:28–29 to being a Jew ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, “in secret.” The reward motif is more important in Matthew than in any other Gospel (see Comment on 5:12). On ἀποδιδόναι, the verb underlying “to reward” in this verse (and vv 6, 18), see especially 16:27 and 20:8.

Explanation

The sermon has been concerned thus far with the defining of true righteousness by a correct understanding of the law. Now specific deeds of piety come into the picture of true righteousness. The practice of righteous deeds—here specifically almsgiving—in order to capture the attention and admiration of others cancels the possibility of any reward from God. The only reward such deeds receive is in the momentary applause of the onlookers. “They were not giving, but buying. They wanted the praise of men, they paid for it” (Davies-Allison, 1:582). True deeds of righteousness, by contrast, are done “in secret” where only God, “who sees in secret,” knows of them. The deeds of righteousness performed by the Christian will of course be seen by others. According to 5:16, followers of Jesus should let their light shine “before others [precisely the language of our pericope], so that they may see your good works.” Although this may seem at first to be a contradiction, 5:16 goes on to say “that they might glorify your Father who is in heaven,” which is in bold contrast to the desire of the hypocrites that “they might be glorified by others” (v 2). Only deeds done for God’s glory will receive an eschatological reward. This stress is in keeping with the emphasis on the inner obedience to God’s commandments, which we encountered in chap. 5. God is concerned with the heart, with the motivation behind a person’s deeds, as much as with the external deeds themselves. The application of the passage is clear and timeless in its bearing upon Christians.

Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, vol. 33A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 136–141.

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550101#Comment_550101

Here is an excerpt from WBC that may help guide you.

Wow! Thanks so much, it was very kind of you.

If this is the average technicality of the series, I believe that WBC would be difficult for me and it is probably not the right choice for me. I can however, see where it would be extremely useful for those who are better trained than me though. Thanks again.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550110#Comment_550110

Here is an excerpt from WBC that may help guide you.

Wow! Thanks so much, it was very kind of you.

If this is the average technicality of the series, I believe that WBC would be difficult for me and it is probably not the right choice for me. I can however, see where it would be extremely useful for those who are better trained than me though. Thanks again.

I only have the one title, and have only read a few articles related to something specific I was working on at the time, so I can't speak to the averageness of this article

Happy to have helped!

David Wilson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550111#Comment_550111

Perhaps try something outside of this "box" of NICNT or WBC.

Consider EEC for a moment and if this one seems to be aligned to your interests and needs then try renting the current volumes for a month to get a better feel for whether the series would be a good buy. Only seven volumes available so far: expect the cost of a rental or subscription to rise as more volumes are released. If you pay for the whole set, you get what is currently released and you get all subsequent volumes as they are released over the next few years.

https://www.logos.com/product/35585/evangelical-exegetical-commentary-rental

https://www.logos.com/product/7565/evangelical-exegetical-commentary

http://evangelicalexegeticalcommentary.com/about/

Scott S

Rick,

Extensive previews of NICNT and NICOT volumes are available. I recommend that you check these to see if they see if they meet your needs. (I have not checked if all the links still work.)

NICOT and NICNT Previews

Here are the links from Matt's original post on the NICNT:

The Book of Revelation (Robert Mounce)

Lee

When scripture is practiced and applied in more than one way, I would like a commentary that covers as many of them as possible.

Both series are on the technical side. http://bestcommentaries.com has a lot of information that could be of help to you.

Armwood

RICK have you look at the option of renting. Say you wanted to study Matthew, you could rent Matthew in the WBC and the NICNT and if you like one over the other, That book in that series you could pay for and the other SIMPLE not rent again.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550253#Comment_550253

RICK have you look at the option of renting. Say you wanted to study Matthew, you could rent Matthew in the WBC and the NICNT and if you like one over the other, That book in that series you could pay for and the other SIMPLE not rent again.

I wasn't aware renting was available on these series - can you advise where you have seen this?

Thanks, Graham

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550120#Comment_550120

The response has been nothing short of amazing. I truly appreciate everyone's input as I prepare to make a large investment. As of right now, it looks as if I'll probably go with the New International Commentary.

I really like how Logos is offering the New Testament broken down into the Gospels, Epistles, General Epistles etc.. allowing me to build more slowly, albeit a bit more expensive, manner if I do decide that I want some sooner than later. Thanks again everyone.

Consider EEC for a moment and if this one seems to be aligned to your interests and needs then try renting the current volumes for a month to get a better feel for whether the series would be a good buy.

Thanks for the reminder David. I had forgotten about this series being in development. I will take your advice and consider the collection. My apprehensiveness is that it is still being written and I would rather wait to see the finished product before investing.

Extensive previews of NICNT and NICOT volumes are available.

Fantastic! I took a quick look and will look again very shortly. They definitely look readable for me even though they are technical. Thanks for the links.

Both series are on the technical side.

After looking at Scott's links above, I see that they are both pretty technical. I wish that they both had the original and transliterated languages but this is not a biggie since I have Logos. [Y]

From the short previews that I looked at the New International does appear to be more readable and enjoyable than the WBC for someone of my background.

Best Commentaries seems to like it too.

RICK have you look at the option of renting.

Like Graham, unfortunately, I don't see an option to rent either set. [:(]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550096#Comment_550096

BTW, are you aware that the Believers Church commentary set is Anabaptist?

Yes, but as you noted, it really does not go deep enough for me when I want to dig deeper. I have found that it seldom goes into various opinions and uses something like "This is admittedly a difficult verse...." and gently brings the discussion to an end. I want to know exactly why it is a difficult verse

That is a most commendable attitude. Too bad everyone doesn't take that approach.

Armwood

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550254#Comment_550254

Thanks Graham seeing that I own both these series, I did not look to see if they were being offered for rentals.
these and other Great book that buyers are having to decide which to purchase would really be helpful if they were offered. again thanks Graham

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550110#Comment_550110

If this is the average technicality of the series, I believe that WBC would be difficult for me and it is probably not the right choice for me.

Hi Rick

Might be worth taking a quick look at the blog below.

http://blog.logos.com/2010/03/which_commentary_is_best/

Then you could make a lost of what you are looking for in a commentary set and post it here so we can help you look at some that might do what you want.

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550285#Comment_550285

Then you could make a lost of what you are looking for in a commentary set and post it here so we can help you look at some that might do what you want.

Hi Graham, thanks for the link and sorry for the delay. Loooong day.

What am I looking for in a commentary? I have several commentaries but most basically give one interpretation and do not give fair and unbiased reasoning of other views. With this in mind my list would contain the following.

Whenever relevant, if a scripture has multiple possible interpretations the author discusses those interpretations and applications in-depth and in an unbiased way. Listing pros and cons is fine as long as it is done as fairly as possible.
If some versions of the Bible differ on interpretation, please tell me why. Although I am in no way trained in the original languages, I absolutely love the science behind them. An example would be Genesis 6:4 dealing with the "daughters of humans/men". The choice of "humans" or "men" can imply that the "Sons of God" were either human or non-human depending how one reads it.
When dealing with the original languages, I would love it if the author includes transliterated words but understand that most commentaries that will meet my other requirements simply don't do this because of their intended audience.
This commentary would be for occasional use, mainly when studying a section in depth. Yes, I know that it is a lot of money to use only occasionally but over the years as my faith has grown there have been many times in my studies where I sure wish that I had a good higher than average quality commentary. In this situation, I find myself reading from multiple commentaries that basically give the same message and, at best, skim over any other views/interpretations.
I would like a commentary that introduces me to new (to me) thoughts and ideas on scripture so that I can discuss them intelligently when someone mentions them during study. I know that books such as the "Perspectives" series are excellent for this but if I don't know that there are varying perspectives I won't know to do further research and look for resources on the different perspectives!

That is all that I can really think of right now. Pillar New Testament Commentary has also been in my thought process but I don't really know how good it is for my interests (I have heard and read good things). The fact that it is New Testament only is something that is steering me away from it since whatever I choose will have to be it for a long time.

Once again, a BIG thank you to everyone.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550460#Comment_550460

For individual books of the bible, the best commentaries may come from different series (or even individual commentaries not in series). It's a hard decision to make!

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550460#Comment_550460

That is all that I can really think of right now. Pillar New Testament Commentary has also been in my thought process but I don't really know how good it is for my interests (I have heard and read good things). The fact that it is New Testament only is something that is steering me away from it since whatever I choose will have to be it for a long time.

I think it is a very good series personally, and there is a OT companion series (Apollos Old Testament Commentaries ), just has not made it to Logos yet...

Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (ed. D. A. Carson; The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Cambridge, U.K.; Nottingham, England; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2012.

It may seem unusual for the NT series to be Eerdman's and the OT series to be IVP, but for decades that was the way the Tyndale Bible Commentary was too....

-dan

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550460#Comment_550460

Hi Graham, thanks for the link and sorry for the delay. Loooong day.

Same here, for the New Testament Baker Exegetical is another one that you might want to look at, here is the Matthew 6 entry so you can see how this compares with WBC.

3. Religious Duties (6:1–18)

Analysis
Matthew 6:1–18 presents the teaching of Jesus on three religious duties that would be basic for a Christian Jewish community such as Matthew’s. Jesus first enunciates the general principle that informs these duties (6:1) and then addresses alms (6:2–4), prayer (6:5–15), and fasting (6:16–18). The teaching here is closely related conceptually and literarily to the preceding section, 5:21–48. Conceptually, 6:1–18 presents another area in which Jesus, as the ultimate teacher of the law and the prophets, explains the greater righteousness (5:20) by which disciples emulate the perfection of the Father (5:48). Literarily, 6:1–18 resembles the structure of 5:21–48 by its logical movement from a general principle (6:1; cf. 5:20) to specific examples (three examples in 6:2–18; cf. six examples in 5:21–48). Another literary similarity is the repeated statement “Truly I tell you, they have their reward,” which clearly demarcates the structure of the material (6:2, 5, 16; cf. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). Throughout 6:1–18 contrasting statements are used to show the difference between the greater righteousness required of Jesus’s disciples and the practice of the religious leaders.
Brief Analysis of Matt. 6:2–18
Situation
“Whenever you …”
6:2, 5, 16
Prohibition
“do not …”
6:2, 5, 7–8, 16
Reason
“Truly I tell you …”
6:2, 5, 16
Command
“but when you …”
6:3, 6, 7, 17
Result
“your Father …”
6:4, 6, 18
The general principle enunciated by 6:1 connects righteousness with the disciples’ intention. The disciples must above all avoid doing religious acts in order to impress people, since the heavenly Father will not reward such acts. When each of the three specific practices is singled out for attention, a similar pattern occurs in which Jesus first forbids hypocritical religious practice and then commands genuine religious practice. In each of the three situations, Jesus gives a reason for prohibiting a behavior and indicates a positive result of the commanded behavior.
A more detailed analysis indicates the symmetrical manner in which each facet of Jesus’s prohibition of hypocritical religion has a counterpart in his commendation of genuine religion (Boring 1995: 200):
The Symmetrical Constrasting Structure of Matt. 6:2–18
Hypocritical Religion Prohibited:
1. The occasion: “Whenever you …” (6:2, 5, 6, 7, 16)
2. The prohibited ostentatious activity: “do not …” (6:2, 5, 7, 16)
3. The prohibited motivation: “to be admired by others” (6:1, 2, 5, 16)
4. The solemn affirmation: “they have their reward” (6:2, 5, 16)
Genuine Religion Commanded:
1. The contrasting occasion: “but when you …” (6:3, 6, 9, 17)
2. The commanded secret activity (6:3, 6, 9–13, 17)
3. The commanded motivation: to be seen only by the Father (6:4, 6, 18)
4. The solemn affirmation: “your Father will repay you” (6:4, 6, 18)
The Proper Audience for Religious Performance
The goal for disciples of Jesus is to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect (5:48). The disciple’s character is to be modeled on the Father’s character, and the disciple’s performance is to be done for the Father’s approval. “Disciples must impress God alone” (Keener 1999: 206). This cuts against the grain of popular cultures that value exhibitionism and ostentation. The “If you’ve got it, flaunt it” principle can perversely infiltrate the modern church as it had the Judaism of Jesus’s day (cf. b. Soṭah 22b). But Jesus would have his disciples do the right thing in the right way.
The tendency in Christian circles to publicize those who give large sums surely violates the central principle of this passage and forgets the lesson of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41–44; Luke 21:1–4). In prayer, eloquence and length are confused with effectiveness, as if God were ignorant of the disciples’ needs and reluctant to meet them. Fasting tends to be ignored altogether, but similarly rigorous pious activities are widely heralded. In all three areas mentioned in Matt. 6:1–18, gaining the fleeting applause of one’s peers amounts to forfeiting the Father’s eternal approval. Disciples must be content to be noticed by the Father, realizing that temporary human approval is insignificant in the light of eternity. Giving to the needy in order to receive publicity is not giving at all—it is paying for human approval, and it forfeits divine approval (Plummer 1915: 91). (On 6:1–18, see Agnew 1995; Syreeni 1994; Wick 1998.)
The unit outline is as follows:
a. General principle (6:1)
b. Three specific practices (6:2–18)
i. Charity (6:2–4)
ii. Prayer (6:5–15)
(1) Two contrasts: Publicity and verbosity versus privacy and simplicity (6:5–8)
(2) The model prayer (6:9–15)
(a) Priorities: Three Petitions for the Father’s glory (6:9–10)
(b) Problems: Three petitions for the disciples’ needs (6:11–13)
(c) The principle: The attitude in which God is approached (6:14–15)
iii. Fasting (6:16–18)

Exegesis and Exposition

1 “Make sure you do not practice your righteousness before people in order to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
2 “So whenever you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets so that they may be praised by people. Truly I tell you, they have their reward. 3 But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your ⌜Father⌝ who sees what is done in secret will reward ⌜you⌝.
5 “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to stand up and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that people may see them. Truly I tell you, they have their reward. 6 But you, whenever you pray, go into your inner room, close your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward ⌜you⌝. 7 While you are praying, do not babble as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 So do not be like them; for ⌜your Father⌝ knows what you need even before you ask him.
9 “Therefore you should pray like this:

‘Our Father who is in heaven,
May your name be honored.
10 May your kingdom come.
May your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us our necessary food for today.
12 And forgive us of our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ⌜For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.⌝’

14 “For if you forgive people of their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive ⌜people⌝, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
16 “And whenever you fast, do not be like gloomy hypocrites, for they disfigure their appearance so that they will appear to people to be fasting. Truly I tell you, they have their reward. 17 But you, anoint your head and wash your face while you are fasting, 18 so that you will not appear to people to be fasting but to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward ⌜you⌝.”

a. General Principle (6:1)

6:1 This verse enunciates the general principle behind the three specific activities in this section: charity (6:2–4), praying (6:5–15), and fasting (6:16–18). This principle concerns intention in religious duties (cf. b. Meg. 20a). Disciples must guard against the perverse tendency to do good deeds in order to receive human admiration, because this forfeits divine reward (cf. Matt. 10:41–42; 19:27–29). Matthew’s term for religious activity is δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē, righteousness), which refers to practical or functional godliness, obedience to God’s laws. It has already been made clear that Jesus’s standard of righteousness is higher than that of the religious leaders (5:20). This verse correlates with 5:16: if the disciples are to do good deeds to the Father’s glory, they cannot do them for their own glory. References to reward in this context recall 5:12, 46 and anticipate 10:41–42; 16:27; 19:29; 20:8; 25:21–29, 34.

b. Three Specific Practices (6:2–18)

i. Charity (6:2–4)

6:2–4 The three concrete examples presented here are central to Second Temple Judaism (cf. Tob. 12:8). The first concrete application of the principle of Matt. 6:1 is that of giving to the needy, a crucial duty for pious Jews. Keener (1999: 207) overstates the matter when he says that the three examples are random, but he is correct that they are intended to be suggestive of how the principle of 6:1 is to be applied to all religious activities. Although trumpets were used in Jewish religious activities (Joel 2:15; CD 11.21–22; Josephus, Ant. 3.294; m. Taʿan 2.5; b. Šabb. 35b; b. Ber. 6b; b. Sanh. 35a), there is no rabbinic text that connects blowing trumpets with giving to the poor. The meaning is metaphorical and hyperbolic (cf. Nolland 2005: 274; Isa. 58:1; Joel 2:1); it describes drawing attention to oneself (like the modern expression “blowing your own horn”). It might refer to a trumpet-shaped collection box that resounded when coins were thrown into it (m. Šeqal. 1.3; 2.1; 6.1–5; W. Davies and Allison 1988: 579; Lachs 1987: 112–13; McEleney 1985). “Hypocrites” occurs here for the first time in Matthew (cf. 6:5, 16; 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13–15, 28; 24:51). A hypocrite is an actor (BDAG 1038), and religious activity is not for those who love (cf. 6:5) to put on a show for people but for those who sincerely love to serve God. Instead of giving in a flashy public manner to attain self-aggrandizement, disciples are to give secretly so that the Father, who is aware of secret actions, can reward them. The emphasis on secrecy is underlined by the hyperbolic “Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” Disciples are to seek eventual permanent divine reward (cf. Tob. 4:10; 12:8; 14:10) rather than immediate temporary human praise. This emphasis on authentic inner religion (ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, en tō kryptō; cf. Rom. 2:28–29; Deut. 30:6) is not absent from rabbinic literature. Jesus’s critique is aimed at abuse of Pharisaic practice, not against Pharisaism per se.

ii. Prayer (6:5–15)

Jesus’s teaching on prayer in 6:5–15 is the centerpiece of 6:1–18 and perhaps of the Sermon on the Mount as a whole. This teaching is more detailed than that on alms and fasting. It consists of two warnings on how not to pray, each balanced by positive teaching (6:5–6; 6:7–8), followed by the model prayer (6:9–15). First Jesus contrasts publicity to privacy (6:5–6) and verbosity to simplicity (6:7–8) in prayer. Certain Jews sought publicity, and the pagans were known for verbosity, but the disciples were to pray privately and simply. These two contrasts lead naturally into the model prayer, which balances three petitions for the Father’s glory (6:9–10) with three petitions for the disciple’s needs (6:11–13). The phrase “on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10c) characterizes the first set of petitions, and the attitude of forgiveness (6:14–15) characterizes the second set.
One may think of 6:9–10 as indicating the person to whom prayer is addressed (6:9b) and the priorities by which prayers are formed (6:9c–10). This person to whom prayer is addressed is characterized as “Father,” a term inevitably colored by one’s relationship to one’s human father. This human relationship may help or hinder one’s perception of God as heavenly Father. One may think of 6:11–15 as concerning the problems about which disciples pray (6:11–13) and the principle that governs their prayers (6:14–15). As they pray about their provisions (6:11), pardon (6:12), and protection (6:13), they remind themselves that if God had not forgiven them, they would not be praying at all, and they respond to God by forgiving others (6:14–15).

(1) Two Contrasts: Publicity and Verbosity versus Privacy and Simplicity (6:5–8)

6:5–6 Jesus forbids his disciples to pray hypocritically on the street or in the synagogue (cf. 23:5–7). Instead, they are to pray privately in an inner room (6:5–6; cf. 24:26; Luke 12:3, 24; BDAG 988). This is an allusion to Isa. 26:20 (cf. the LXX: Gen. 43:30; Exod. 7:28 [8:3 Eng.]; 2 Kings 4:33), which in its context speaks of Israel hiding from judgment in anticipation of blessing. Although Jesus is portrayed as praying privately in the Gospels (Mark 1:35; 6:46; 14:32–42; Luke 5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28–29; cf. 2 Kings 4:33), here he forbids hypocrisy, not sincere prayer in public or in religious services (cf. Matt. 11:25; Mark 6:41; Luke 11:1; John 11:41–42; 1 Tim 2:1–2, 8). This critique addresses insincere Jewish practice and may have in mind hypocrisy in reciting the Amidah—or Eighteen Benedictions (to be uttered three times a day)—the Shema (to be done twice daily), and various other blessings. (See also the remarks on 6:9a.)

6:7–8 In 6:7–8 Jesus critiques the prayers of non-Christian Gentiles or pagans (cf. 5:47; 6:32), which evidently could include long-winded babbling to obtain the attention of the gods, or perhaps even the utterance of repeated magical incantations. But Jesus reminds his disciples that their Father already knows what they need before they ask (cf. 6:32; Isa. 65:24; Dan. 10:12; Luke 12:30; Acts 10:31). Jesus was not the first to command an economy of words in prayer (cf. Eccles. 5:2; Isa. 1:15; Sir. 7:14; 2 Bar. 48.26; m. Ber. 3.5; 4.4; but contrast y. Ber. 4.7b, which counsels multiplied prayers). It is appropriate to recall Elijah’s prayer contest with the prophets of Baal in connection with this verse, especially 1 Kings 18:26–29. Ancient Greek authors also spoke out against loquacious prayers (cf. the examples cited by H. Betz 1995: 365–67).

(2) The Model Prayer (6:9–15)

(a) Priorities: Three Petitions for the Father’s Glory (6:9–10)

6:9a As form-critical scholars note (e.g., H. Betz 1995: 350; van Tilborg 1972a), the model prayer of 6:9–15 (cf. a shorter version in Luke 11:1–4 and a nearly identical one in Did. 8.2) tends to interrupt the repeated pattern of Matt. 6:2–4; 6:5–8; 6:16–18. But this does not necessarily bring the prayer’s authenticity or the literary unity of 6:1–18 into doubt. The model prayer provides a balancing positive example that offsets the preceding critique of hypocritical prayer, and it exemplifies the kingdom values inculcated in the Beatitudes. The similarity of this prayer to the Kaddish, a postsermon synagogue prayer, is noted by many (e.g., Abrahams 1967: 2.98–99; Baumgardt 1991; W. Davies and Allison 1988: 595–97; Hagner 1993: 147). Possible connections with the prayer known as the Amidah, Tefillah, or Eighteen Benedictions (Shemoneh Esreh) have also been investigated.19 Although the content of Jesus’s prayer reveals basic Jewish values and concerns, it differs from typical Jewish prayers in its simplicity, brevity, and eschatological orientation (W. Davies and Allison 1988: 595; but see Flusser 1990: 53–62).
Although Jesus said that his disciples were to pray “like this” (οὕτως, houtōs), Did. 8 enjoins that this prayer be repeated three times a day (cf. Bahr 1965). From ancient times Christians have placed the prayer on amulets, charms, and wall hangings. This is more than a little ironic. The “Lord’s Prayer” is in fact the model prayer for his disciples. It is not a mantra to be repeated mindlessly or superstitiously but an example of a prayer informed by kingdom values, the kind of prayer a disciple should pray. In such prayer, doxology (exemplified by the first three “your” requests) precedes and permeates requests for human needs (exemplified by the last three “us” requests).
Prayer is to be addressed to “our Father in heaven” (cf. 3:17; 5:9, 16, 45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 14–15, 18, 26; 7:11, 21). The family imagery speaks of the intimacy of the disciples’ relationship to God, but the qualifier “in heaven” reminds one that God is not a pal. Rather, this God is the awesome God of heaven who has come near in the person of his beloved Son and counts disciples of the kingdom as his dear family (cf. 12:46–50; Isa. 57:15). God is “our Father in heaven” because God has come near to his children by his grace, establishing a covenant relationship of intimacy and community. Yet God is at the same time “our Father in heaven”; he remains distant from his children because of his glory, which leads his disciples to approach him with awe. This God deserves the utmost devotion flowing from love and reverence for the one who perfectly and harmoniously possesses goodness and greatness, grace and power, immanence and transcendence. When prayer is made, God’s goodness and greatness must be carefully balanced to achieve intimacy without sentimentality, on the one hand, and reverence without austerity, on the other.

6:9b–10 The three “your” requests should be understood as three ways of asking for essentially the same thing. God’s name represents his person and character (BDAG 712), God’s kingdom is the earthly imposition of his character, and God’s will flows from his character (cf. Metzler in Chilton and Evans 1999b: 187–202). To a certain extent, God’s character is revered as he rules on earth through people who do his will, but the main focus of these requests is on the future full manifestation of God’s reign on earth (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).
Since the three “your” petitions are essentially one, the final phrase of Matt. 6:10, “on earth as it is in heaven,” describes all of them, not just the third. Disciples long for the realities of heaven to be realized on earth (cf. Schneider in Schenke 1988: 283–97). All three requests imply that certain aspects of the kingdom are yet future, entailing the progressive actualization of God’s character, reign, and will on earth, that is, universally. Such requests come from one whose hunger for righteousness on earth will not be satisfied with a snack, as it were, but only with the eschatological banquet associated with the age to come (5:6; cf. 8:11). The Father is the Lord of heaven and earth (11:25), and he has given the resurrected Jesus universal authority in heaven and on earth (28:18). In the meantime, as disciples are engaged in the gradual extension of the kingdom by their words and deeds, their utmost desire is for the ultimate realization of God’s reign on earth at the end of the age (13:37–43; 24:14; 28:20).
Matthew 6:9–10 convincingly shows that one should not pray primarily in order to receive goods and services from God but to render service to God. Prayer is not first and foremost an exercise to vindicate the disciple’s causes, meet the disciple’s needs, fulfill the disciple’s desires, or solve the disciple’s problems. Rather, one’s priority must be the promotion of God’s reputation, the advancement of God’s rule, and the performance of God’s will. These three petitions are essentially one expression of burning desire to see the Father honored on earth as he is already honored in heaven (cf. Rev. 4–5). The disciples’ hope is not escapism—they do not look to leave the earth for an ethereal heavenly existence. Rather, they look for a concrete existence in which heaven comes to earth, and they seek heaven’s interests on earth today as they anticipate a time when God’s reign on earth will be consummated (Matt. 13:40–43; 16:27–28; 19:28–30; 25:34).

(b) Problems: Three Petitions for the Disciples’ Needs (6:11–13)

6:11 Three petitions for the disciples’ needs now balance the three previous theocentric petitions. Whatever one’s wants, one’s deepest human needs are found in these requests: daily sustenance (6:11), forgiveness (6:12), and avoidance of sin (6:13). In 6:11 the key word in the expression translated “our necessary food for today” is the obscure adjective ἐπιούσιος (epiousios), which may be a coined term (Origen, Prayer 27.7); it does not occur outside Christian literature dependent on this text (cf. Luke 11:3; Did. 8.2; Metzger 1957; Hemer 1984). Educated guesses at its meaning include “daily,” “necessary,” and “for tomorrow,” understood by some as a reference to the eschatological “tomorrow” that follows “today,” this age. Whatever the precise meaning, the point seems to be that the disciple prays for immediate day-to-day necessities rather than for long-term luxuries. In Matt. 6:25, disciples are told not to worry about such necessities, and in 6:34 they are told not to worry about tomorrow. Rather, they are to trust their Father implicitly for everything. The fact that in biblical times manual laborers were paid on a daily basis (20:8) seems to reinforce the perspective taught here.

6:12 Prayer for ongoing forgiveness (6:12) implies that the disciple has made the decisive turn from sin to God demanded by the message of the kingdom (3:2; 4:17). This request shows that authentic disciples on a regular basis have obligations to God that remain unfulfilled (cf. Lachs 1975a). The word “debts” (ὀφειλήματα, opheilēmata) occurs only one other time in the NT (Rom 4:4; cf. a cognate word in Matt. 18:32; Did. 8.2), and there it describes financial obligation (cf. LXX: Deut. 24:10; 1 Esd. 3:20; 1 Macc. 15:8). The parallel in Luke 11:4 uses the common word for “sin,” ἁμαρτία (hamartia). Here in Matthew the idea is moral obligations owed to God that have not been met (cf. the cognate terms in Matt. 23:16, 18; Rom. 13:7–8; 1 Cor. 7:3 and the discussion in H. Betz 1995: 400–404). This nuance of sin as unfulfilled obligation paves the way for the expansion of forgiveness in terms of unmet human obligations in Matt. 6:14–15. When disciples pray for pardon, they recognize that they are not yet perfect—their attitudes and activities often fall short of kingdom standards (cf. 5:3, 6). Receiving this pardon is an amazing privilege, but it comes with a corresponding responsibility, extending pardon to others. A forgiven person is a forgiving person.

6:13 The third request (6:13) is stated in two contrasting ways, negatively (“Do not lead us into temptation”; cf. Luke 11:4; Mark 14:38) and positively (“but deliver us from the evil one”; cf. John 17:15; 2 Thess. 3:3; 2 Tim. 4:18; Rev. 3:10; Grelot 1989). Since the Spirit led Jesus into a time of testing (4:1), this petition is not so much for God not to lead the disciple into a moral test as it is for the disciple to be delivered from Satan so as not to yield to temptation. Some argue that the testing spoken of here is the eschatological woe before the arrival of the bliss of the kingdom (Meier 1980b: 62; Tasker 1961: 74), but this is overly subtle in view of the frequent use of πειρασμός (peirasmos) for present trials. (For another overly subtle view, see Houk 1966.)
The justice of God as it relates to temptations faced by humans is one aspect of the complex theological problem of theodicy (cf. H. Betz 1995: 313–14, 406–10; Carmignac 1969: 236–319; Houk 1966; Moule 1974). God permits evil to exist in the world and indeed permits his people to be tested, yet God is not to be blamed when humans fail the test, succumb to evil, and fall into sin (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13; Heb. 2:18; 4:15; James 1:12–18; 2 Pet. 2:9; Sir. 15:11–20; Origen, Prayer 29–30; b. Ber. 60b).
When disciples pray for protection from temptation to sin, they pray for God to break the cycle that so often plagues them (cf. Josh. 7:20–21; James 1:13–15). Temptation leads to sin, and sin leads to the necessity of praying for forgiveness. Prayer for protection from temptation and deliverance from the evil one’s strategies breaks the cycle (cf. Matt. 4:1–11). (See Tournay 1998.)
The doxology found as the second half of Matt. 6:13 in the KJV is not found in many of the most ancient MSS and is probably not a part of the original version of this Gospel (cf. the additional note on 6:13). It interrupts the continuity between the petition in 6:13 and the explanation in 6:14–15. Nevertheless, it provides a fitting conclusion to the prayer and may have been added for liturgical purposes (cf. 1 Chron. 29:11–13). (See M. Black in P. Davies and White 1990: 327–38.)

6:14–15 Just as the phrase “on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10) related to all three of the previous petitions, so also here the words of 6:14–15 on the necessity of an attitude of forgiveness relate not just to 6:12 but also to all three requests for human needs. Disciples are hereby warned not to ask for their needs to be met in a spirit that is unwilling to meet the needs of others. Rather, disciples will realize that their experience of God’s forgiveness enables them to forgive others (cf. 5:23–24, 38–48; 18:21–25). This has been misunderstood by some classic dispensationalists as “legal ground,” which teaches that our forgiving others merits God’s forgiving us, as some classic dispensationalists implied (Gaebelein 1910: 143). Rather, the point is that God’s initiative in graciously forgiving us should motivate us to forgive others. Forgiving others demonstrates that we have been forgiven by God. Forgiven, we have been freed to forgive. This is not the reverse of what Paul taught (cf. Matt. 5:23–24; 9:2, 5, 6; 12:31–32; 18:32–35; Eph. 4:31–5:2; Col. 3:13; contra Walvoord 1974: 53).
Disciples today must reflect on the extent to which their prayers correspond to the Lord’s model prayer. Probing questions must be asked. Are their prayers motivated by the vision that God’s will must be done on earth as it is in heaven? Do their prayers for personal needs arise from hearts reconciled with their neighbors as well as with God? As prayer for personal needs is considered, anxiety over material things inevitably surfaces. Matthew 6:19–34 presents Jesus’s teaching on this topic.

iii. Fasting (6:16–18)

6:16–18 Fasting is the third area of religious activity now addressed with the same pattern found in the previous teaching on giving and praying. While fasting, we should not neglect our appearance in order to draw attention to ourselves. Rather, we should maintain personal grooming so that God alone notices the fast and rewards us. Of the three activities treated in 6:1–18, fasting is certainly the least important to many Christians today. Indeed, it is not commanded in any of the NT Epistles. Yet it was an important part of Jewish religious practice in the days of Jesus. Fasting was a prescribed part of various Israelite community activities involving public repentance (Joel 1:14; 2:15), and pious Jews fasted voluntarily during times of religious devotion, especially prayer. It is primarily voluntary fasting that is in view here. Jesus himself fasted (Matt. 4:2; cf. Moses and Elijah, Exod. 34:28; 1 Kings 19:8) and spoke metaphorically of the appropriateness of fasting for his disciples after his death (Matt. 9:14–15). The Pharisees fasted (9:14; cf. Luke 18:12), and Jesus does not criticize them for the practice. In Acts the disciples fasted before selecting church leaders (Acts 13:2–3; 14:23).
The prophetic critique of fasting not accompanied by just behavior (Isa. 58:3–7; Jer. 14:11–12; Zech. 7:4–14; 8:19; cf. Sir. 34:31; Gos. Thom. 14, 104) is not unlike Jesus’s condemnation of hypocritical fasting here. Although genuine external signs such as sackcloth, ashes, and torn garments could accompany genuine fasting (Dan. 9:3; Jon. 3:5; Jdt. 8:5; 1 Macc. 3:47; Josephus, J.W. 3.47), Jesus was not impressed with fasting advertised by an artificially haggard demeanor (Matt. 6:16; cf. Luke 24:17) or with a theatrically altered appearance. Such behavior may have been the norm for actors who sought the crowd’s applause, but it is singularly inappropriate for disciples who seek the Father’s approval. They should wash themselves and anoint their heads normally so that only the Father knows about their fast. This seems to portray fasting during affliction as a time of genuine inner joy rather than of counterfeit outward pain.
The focus of Matt. 5:21–48 was on Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of the law. The focus in 6:1–18 is on Jesus as teacher of the community cultus. But these two sections are similar in two ways. First, the structure of both sections includes an initial general statement (5:17–20; 6:1) followed by a series of specific examples that feature repetition, contrast, and symmetry. There are three contrasting examples in 5:21–32, 33–48 and three in 6:2–4, 5–15, 16–18. Second, both sections stress a higher righteousness in which internal intention leads to external activity (5:8, 16, 20, 22, 28, 37, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 13–15, 18).

Additional Notes

6:4. With the reading αὐτὸς ἀποδώσει σοι or ἀποδώσει σοι αὐτός, the Textus Receptus and other MSS stress the Father’s role in rewarding the disciples. These additions of the personal pronoun αὐτός are not likely to be original, but they correctly emphasize the truth that genuine reward comes from God alone. Another variant reading in this verse, found in the Byzantine text and other later witnesses, has the phrase ἐν τῷ φανερῷ at the end, producing a contrast with ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ in the first half of the verse (cf. 6:6, 18). This results in the debatable idea that God will openly reward those who secretly give, pray, and fast (cf. 7:21–23; 16:27; 19:28).

6:6. The phrase ἐν τῷ φανερῷ is added again here by some MSS. See the note on 6:4 (cf. 6:18).

6:8. A few early sources have ὁ θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν instead of ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν, but this variant has a Pauline flavor (cf., e.g., Rom. 1:7) that occurs nowhere else in Matthew. Some late sources conform 6:8 to 6:14 (not 6:9, pace Metzger 1994: 13) by adding ὁ οὐράνιος to ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν. Scribal error evidently accounts for the variant ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν instead of ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν in other sources.

6:13. The shorter rendering of this verse, found in most recent translations, is due to the rejection of a longer doxological ascription that appears in various forms. A few sources simply add ἀμήν to ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. The Byzantine text-type supports the words enclosed in half-brackets (⌜⌝) in the above translation. Other sources further augment the words in half-brackets (⌜⌝) with a trinitarian formula. Since the longer versions of this verse are not found in many early Greek MSS and patristic sources, they most likely result from liturgical adaptation. See Bandstra 1981, 1982; Metzger 1994: 14; van Bruggen 1982.

6:15. The words τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν are found after τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in many MSS representing different text-types. Since these words are also found in 6:14 and at the end of 6:15, the debate over their genuineness is a matter of omission of a supposed redundancy versus addition of a balancing phrase. In any event, the meaning of the verse is not changed.

6:18. See the notes on 6:4 and 6:6 for discussion of the variant at the end of this verse.

Turner, D. L. (2008). Matthew (pp. 179–192). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550601#Comment_550601

for the New Testament Baker Exegetical is another one that you might want to look at, here is the Matthew 6 entry so you can see how this compares with WBC.

Thanks so much Graham. Wow, I have a lot of reviewing to do with all of the copy/pastes and links that everyone has provided. I sure feel that I can make an educated decision. [Y]

Thanks again to everyone.

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550645#Comment_550645

Thanks so much Graham. Wow, I have a lot of reviewing to do

Rick

If you think of any others that you might want to look at the same passage from then it is worth asking.

With the array that are available it is quite difficult to advise someone. There use to be a page on the Logos web site that categorised the different commentaries but I can't find it on the current site.

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550645#Comment_550645

One less 'scholarly' option is Tyndale which as an Old and New Testament series that seems quite popular with others here.

vi. Teaching on religious observance (6:1–18)
The ‘righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees’ (5:20) is to be seen not only in a new radical approach to the legal and ethical questions which concerned the scribes (5:21–48), but in a new attitude to the scrupulous religious observance which was the hallmark of the Pharisees (6:1–18). The new attitude consists not in a repudiation of the main aspects of Jewish piety, but in an avoidance of ostentation in their performance. Religious observance is to be directed towards God, not to gaining the approval of men.
Almsgiving, prayer and fasting are selected as examples of religious observance. These three were (and are) the most prominent practical requirements for personal piety in mainstream Judaism (see Davies, pp. 307–315). The same three activities, together with the specifically Islamic requirements of the Hajj and recitation of the creed, constitute also the Five Pillars of Islam. Jesus accepts them as central also to the religious life of his disciples. They are treated in three passages of closely parallel structure (vv. 2–4, 5–6, 16–18), with a general introduction (v. 1); a long digression on prayer (vv. 7–15) interrupts the carefully balanced structure, and is perhaps an insertion by Matthew, made up of independent sayings of Jesus, into a characteristically memorable unit of Jesus’ teaching.
1. The overall theme of the section is stated simply, in words which superficially seem to conflict with 5:16. But what is condemned here is ostentation, particularly in the practice of religious duties. (Piety is a good translation for dikaiosynē (normally ‘righteousness’) in this context: it picks up the ‘righteousness’ of 5:20, but with special application to religious observance rather than to ethical obedience, and so acts as a general term to cover the specific references to almsgiving, prayer and fasting which follow.) The disciple’s life is inevitably, and rightly, public, but that does not entitle him to show off his religious devotion; there is a world of difference between living a conspicuously good and godly life (5:13–16) and striving to gain a reputation for piety. The difference lies not only in the motive, but in the result: the former brings glory to God, the latter only to the performer.
There is also a difference in reward. See on 5:12 for the concept of rewards, which recurs twice in each of the three subsections that follows (vv. 2, 4, 5, 6, 16, 18). The show-off gets what he has earned, the approval of men, and so misses the true reward which comes only from your Father who is in heaven (see on 5:16; this view of God dominates ch. 6 particularly).
2. Almsgiving was a religious duty, not a philanthropic option, in Judaism (cf. Deut. 15:7–11; Ps. 112:9) and by the first century AD poor relief based on such almsgiving was impressively well-organized. Jesus expects his disciples to give generously, but not conspicuously. Sound no trumpet is probably metaphorical for calling attention to oneself, as in other ancient literature, since no literal use of trumpets in connection with almsgiving is clearly attested. Hypocrite is a favourite word in Matthew, used particularly, as here and in vv. 5, 16, to characterize the Pharisees in their ostentatious piety. In chapter 23, it has become a stereotyped epithet for the scribes and Pharisees. The Greek word means originally an ‘actor’, and here that sense is not far from the surface: they are performing to an audience. It is this rather than any conscious insincerity which is the point of the word here, though elsewhere insincerity (22:18), or at least inconsistency between words and deeds (7:5; 15:7), is in view. The aim of such play-acting is that they may be praised by men, and in that praise it finds its full reward (misthos, literally ‘wages’, that which has been earned). Have (apechō) is a commercial term for receipt in full, and therefore implies there is no more to look forward to (cf. its use in Luke 6:24, and the similar apolambanō in Luke 16:25).
3–4. In contrast, the secrecy of the disciple’s almsgiving will result in a reward (not an earned remuneration, but the disproportionate return of God’s grace: see on 5:12), not from men, but from your Father who (alone) sees in secret. The stress is on the source (and therefore the quality) of the reward in comparison with the hypocrite’s ‘wages’, not on the manner of its giving, as in the late reading reflected in AV ‘openly’. The older text does not indicate that the Father’s reward is either public or even earthly.
5–6. The structure is closely parallel to vv. 2–4, and uses the same key words and phrases, on which see above. The prayers in the synagogues were led by a member who stood at the front; to be invited to do so was presumably a mark of distinction in the congregation. Prayer was not normally practised at the street corners, but Jeremias suggests that one who strictly observed the afternoon hour of prayer could deliberately time his movements to bring him to the most public place at the appropriate time (NTT, p. 187)! The disciple, by contrast, is to pray in the ‘storeroom’ (tameion; cf. Luke 12:24). This was an inner room, secluded, probably windowless, and possibly with the only lockable door in the house; it is thus proverbial for a secret place (Luke 12:3; cf. Matt. 24:26). The clause is modelled on Isaiah 26:20 (where tameion occurs in the LXX), as a prescription for hiding away. Jesus is not here forbidding public or communal prayer as such, but the ostentation to which it is too easily prone. The essence of prayer is the communion of the disciple with his Father.
7–8. The subject of prayer is expanded with other sayings—a warning against mechanical praying (vv. 7–8), the Lord’s Prayer (vv. 9–13), and a comment on it (vv. 14–15)—before the third part of the teaching on religious observance in vv. 16–18. The first saying is aimed not now against the ‘hypocrites’, but against praying as the Gentiles do. Prayer in the non-Jewish world was often characterized particularly by formal invocations and magical incantations, in which the correct repetition counted rather than the worshipper’s attitude or intention. Heap up empty phrases translates the Greek battalogeō, a word otherwise unknown in contemporary literature, and perhaps coined as an onomatopoeic term for empty ‘babbling’; its resemblance to the Hebrew bāṭel (‘vain, idle’) would sharpen the point. The stress is apparently on the quality rather than the quantity of the utterance. This is not a prohibition either of repetition in prayer (AV ‘vain repetitions’ is unwarranted; Jesus repeated himself, Matt. 26:44) or of set forms of prayer (vv. 9–13 go on to give one!), but of thoughtless, mechanical prayer. It is not many words that God responds to, but an attitude of prayerful dependence.
9–13. The Lord’s Prayer occurs in a shorter form in Luke 11:2–4; it is generally assumed that Matthew’s version represents the first stage of its expansion in Christian liturgical use, to be completed by the later addition of the doxology (see on v. 13), though there is no improbability in Lohmeyer’s view that Jesus taught the prayer in different forms on two separate occasions; the context in Luke is a specific request for instruction on how to pray, while in Matthew it is part of a more general discourse on the nature of prayer.
It has become fashionable in recent interpretation to take the Lord’s Prayer, even in the Lucan version, as primarily eschatological, concerned with the disciple’s longing for and preparation for the consummation of God’s kingdom. Practically every clause can be interpreted in that way. But the fact that Christians have used the prayer throughout the centuries without a specifically eschatological intention suggests that it also has an application to the disciple’s daily concerns (which should of course include the looking forward to God’s victory), even that this application is the primary one.
It is a prayer for disciples, who alone can call God ‘Father’. It is also a prayer for disciples as a group (all the first person pronouns are plural). This, together with its marked similarity to several Jewish liturgical prayers of the period (for examples see McNeile, p. 77), suggests that at least part of its purpose was a liturgical use in Christian worship. This does not exclude, however, its use also as a summary or model for our own prayer, both corporate and private, and its use in this way has preserved many Christians from the self-centred approach which easily characterizes our prayer without such a model.
9. Then indicates that the following prayer is an expression of the understanding of God’s fatherly care in v. 8, in contrast with the practice of the Gentiles (v. 7); an emphatic ‘you’ in the Greek points the contrast. The address ‘Father’ found in the Lucan version represents the bold ‘Abba’ which was a hallmark of Jesus’ unique intimacy with God (Mark 14:36). The boldness is blunted in Matthew’s Our Father who art in heaven, a more reverent formula found (unlike the simple ‘Abba’) in some Jewish prayers. This address does, however, express forcibly the tension in the disciples’ attitude to God, who is at the same time in heaven, transcendent, all-powerful, the Lord of the universe and yet Our Father, concerned for the needs of each disciple, and entering into an intimate relationship with them.
Three parallel clauses follow, the first two closely echoing the synagogue prayer known as the Qaddish: ‘Exalted and hallowed be his great name in the world which he created according to his will. May he let his kingdom rule in your lifetime … speedily and soon.’ Hallowed be thy name is asking for more than reverent speech. (Hallow means ‘make holy’, or better ‘treat as holy, reverence’, BAGD, p. 9a.) The name represents God himself as revealed to men (so frequently in the Old Testament, e.g. Deut. 28:58; Isa. 30:27). This clause may thus express both a desire to see God truly honoured as God in the world today, and an eschatological longing for the day when all men acknowledge God as the Lord.
10. Thy kingdom come is the most clearly eschatological clause in the prayer. It must at least include an aspiration for the final establishment of God’s rule over all his creation (see pp. 48–50 for the idea of ‘kingdom of God/heaven’). But in the ministry of Jesus the kingdom of God had in a sense already come (see on 3:2) and its progressive establishment no less than its final consummation should be the constant concern of disciples. Similarly Thy will be done can apply both to men’s obedience to God’s will in the world today (cf. the very personal use of the same phrase by Jesus in 26:42) and to the ultimate working out of God’s purpose for the world. To view these three petitions as purely eschatological is to defuse one of the most demanding prayers disciples can be called on to offer, with far-reaching consequences for the daily conduct of their lives; to view them as purely ethical is to ignore the ‘blessed hope’ which is the mainspring of New Testament discipleship. The three clauses are rounded off with the phrase on earth as it is in heaven, which, in view of the careful balance of the three preceding clauses, is probably to be taken with all of them rather than as an extension of the last. It too allows the double application of these clauses, which have a fulfilment not only in the worship and harmony of heaven but also on earth, progressively as the consummation approaches and completely when it comes. The prayer embraces the whole scope of this outworking of God’s purpose, but its focus is not on either present or future, but on God himself, whose glory must be the disciples’ first and deepest concern, before they consider their own needs.
11. The three clauses of prayer for God’s glory are now balanced by three petitions for the disciples’ needs. Material needs are represented by our daily bread, but the meaning of daily is uncertain. Epiousios occurs nowhere else except perhaps in a fragment of an Egyptian account book, published in the last century but since lost! Of the many suggested translations, based on different speculative etymologies, three seem possible. (a) ‘For the day (in question)’, hence daily, possibly with a reminiscence of the daily provision of manna in the wilderness. (b) ‘Necessary’ for survival, cf. Proverbs 30:8, ‘feed me with the food that is needful for me’; in the account-book fragment it probably referred to a daily ‘ration’. (c) ‘For the coming day’, which is currently the most favoured translation, supported by Jerome’s report of this interpretation in an early Aramaic version of the Gospel. (a) and (b) come to much the same thing, a prayer for the day’s material needs to be met. (c) could either carry a similar meaning, asking for tomorrow’s food to be provided, or an eschatological sense ‘food for the Coming Day’, with reference to the expected Messianic banquet (see on 8:11). If the whole prayer is taken eschatologically, this last meaning seems required (see Jeremias, NTT, pp. 199–201). But the fact that this bread is required today (and still more the Lucan version, which asks for it ‘each day’) suggests that the thought is of daily provision, and if so it makes little difference whether the request is for today’s or tomorrow’s bread. Such a request is not in conflict with vv. 25ff., for it is the fact that these needs have been committed to God in prayer that makes anxiety unnecessary.
12. Debts represents the regular Aramaic term for sin, which literally denoted money debt, here put literally into Greek (Luke has the more ordinary term for ‘sins’, but retains the idea of debt in the second clause). The thought is of sins in general, as the explanation in vv. 14–15, using the very general term trespass (literally ‘false step’, i.e. wrongdoing), makes clear. Have forgiven seems clearly to be the correct text in Matthew, though many MSS have substituted the present tense (used here by Luke) to avoid the implication that God’s forgiving us depends on our prior forgiveness of others. In fact the Aramaic perfect, which probably lies behind Matthew’s aorist tense, could be used with a present sense (‘as herewith we forgive our debtors’, Jeremias, NTT, p. 201), so that Luke’s present is more idiomatically correct, Matthew’s aorist more ‘Semitic’. The point lies not in the time-sequence, but, as vv. 14–15 will explain, in the insincerity of a prayer for forgiveness from an unforgiving disciple.
13. After material provision and forgiveness for past sins comes a prayer, in two clauses, for protection from future sin. Temptation (peirasmos) is better ‘testing’ (cf. p. 101, above). God, while he does not ‘tempt’ men to do evil (Jas 1:13), does allow his children to pass through periods of testing. But disciples, aware of their weakness, should not desire such testing, and should pray to be spared exposure to situations in which they are vulnerable. If they do find themselves in such a situation, however, they must pray to be delivered from evil (or ‘the Evil One’—as in 5:37 either translation is possible, and the sense is not greatly affected by the choice). The stress in both clauses is on the vulnerability of disciples and their consequent dependence on God for avoiding sin, though the ultimate threat of the eschatological conflict cannot be excluded from the prayer’s perspective.
The familiar doxology, which is absent from all texts of Luke, occurs in slightly varying forms in a good number of early MSS and versions of Matthew at this point, but its absence from several of the most important early witnesses, representing the text of Matthew in use in various parts of the church from the second century, convinces most scholars that it was not in the original text (though in use very early and over a wide area). The prayer is likely to have been originally given and used with the form of a concluding doxology (an essential element in most Jewish prayers) left free, probably as a congregational response. The form we now know (modelled on 1 Chr. 29:11–12?) gradually became standardized as a part of the prayer itself, probably during the second century. Whether it, or something like it, goes back to the time of Jesus we cannot be sure. (For an unusually positive estimate see Davies, pp. 451–453.)
14–15. This comment on v. 12 adds little to what was implicit in the prayer itself. It in turn may be interpreted from 18:23–35, where the connection between our forgiving and being forgiven is graphically expounded. The point is not so much that forgiving is a prior condition of being forgiven, but that forgiveness cannot be a one-way process. Like all God’s gifts it brings responsibility; it must be passed on. To ask for forgiveness on any other basis is hypocrisy. There can be no question, of course, of our forgiving being in proportion to what we are forgiven, as 18:23–35 makes clear.
16–18. After the digression on prayer, the third example of religious observance is presented with the same structure and the same key words as vv. 2–4, 5–6 (see on vv. 2–4). Fasting was a prominent element in Jewish religious life, both at statutory times (Day of Atonement, and other prescribed fasts with historical significance) and occasionally, either by corporate or individual decision (see ‘Fasting’, NBD, p. 373). Strict Pharisees fasted at least twice a week (Luke 18:12), and made sure that others knew it. Disfigure (aphanizō) is literally ‘make invisible’ (it is translated ‘consume’ in vv. 19–20), a vivid expression for making unrecognizable, either by covering the head or by smearing with ash and dirt. In contrast, the disciple who fasts must look quite normal, clean and happy (anointing with oil was a common cosmetic, not necessarily a sign of special celebration: to put on a show of exceptional gaiety would be as ostentatious as the ‘hypocrites’!). Jesus assumes that fasting will continue to be practised among his disciples, as indeed it was, after his death (see further on 9:14–15; cf. Acts 13:2–3; 14:23).

France, R. T. (1985). Matthew: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 135–142). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550087#Comment_550087

NICNT is definitely more suited to lay people with no academic training and/or knowledge of original languages. It is also more predictably in agreement with Evangelical views, which may not always be an asset, but will please anyone who wants just that.

Yes, some only want to confirm the opinions they already have.

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550645#Comment_550645

And here is Pillar...

6. Practicing Piety, 6:1–34

The previous section has made it very clear that Jesus was not opposed to the keeping of the law; rather, he was firmly committed to it and in a much more wholehearted way than his Pharisaic opponents. But the service of God included a good deal more than could be determined by a reference to the law; therefore, he turns now to some of the practical matters that appear when people are trying to put their professed willingness to serve God into practice. The three activities he mentions—the giving of alms, prayer, and fasting—were particularly important in Jewish piety (cf. Tob. 12:8, “Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness”). Jesus insists on the importance of a deep sincerity in those who follow him.

a. Almsgiving, 6:1–4

1 “Take care not to parade your righteousness before men in order to be seen by them; if you do, you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. 2 Whenever then you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, in order that they may be praised by men; truly I tell you, they have their reward. 3 But when you are giving alms, let your left hand not know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your almsgiving may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

Jesus begins with the giving of alms, a most important part of piety in a day when poverty was very widespread and when the lot of the poor was so hard. Everybody accepted the fact that it was a religious duty to help the poor, but Jesus points out that it was possible to do this in an objectionable way. Some people made a public display of their generosity (a phenomenon that has been repeated in every age). They were more interested in ensuring that they were known as benefactors than in genuinely helping the poor; reputation rather than relief of poverty was what mattered to them. Jesus teaches that it is important to give, not to be known to give. So he suggests that precautions be taken to ensure that, while gifts are indeed given, the identity of the givers is kept secret.
1. Take care renders a verb that has the meaning “turn (your mind) to” and thus “give careful attention to,” “concentrate on.” Jesus is inviting his hearers to concentrate on the central thing when they perform any act of righteousness. This word may be used in any one of a variety of ways, but here it refers to any good deed that a person may do as part of his service of God (Jesus goes on to illustrate with the examples of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting). The believer must always keep in mind that the act is righteous only if it is what it purports to be—the service of God. When instead it is done as a means of enhancing the reputation of the doer of the deed, then it is no longer a simple act of divine service. It is thus important that the aim should never be that people may observe it. Occasions may arise when publicity is unavoidable, but the deed must never be done in order to be made public. If it is so done,3 then there is no reward (see on 5:12) with your Father who is in heaven (see on 5:16). Why should there be? The deed was done in order to secure a reputation, not in order to serve God. Already the doer has secured his reward. He aimed at reputation. He got it. He has no right to expect the further benefit of divine approval.
2. Whenever is comprehensive; Jesus is not pointing to an occasional happening, but to the regular practice. You is singular, which makes the application personal (in the previous verse the plural was used). Jesus assumes that his hearers will assist the poor; the question is not “Whether?” but “How?” Almsgiving is commanded in Scripture (e.g., Deut. 15:11), and all who serve God must take this seriously. Jesus tells his hearers not to sound a trumpet before them. This lively piece of imagery (surely there cannot be anything more public than the sounding of a trumpet!) at one and the same time burlesques the attitude of publicity seekers and denounces it. That is the method of the hypocrites.8 The word was used for actors who, of course, play a part and whose words are spoken for effect and not in order to convey the truth. These hypocrites were people who acted a concern for the poor whereas their real concern was to establish a reputation for piety. The synagogue (see on 4:23) was, of course, a place of worship, but it was also the center of life for the community and functions like the administration of justice were carried on there. The synagogue was a public place, and a generous gift made there would certainly be noticed. So it was with the streets. Jesus selects two very public places where hypocritical gifts may be given and warns his followers against following the practice. People who engage in that kind of giving are interested in being praised by men;10 it is the praise and not the helping of the needy in which they are primarily interested. For truly I tell you see on 5:18; it is an expression that recurs in this sermon. Such people have their reward. This expression employs the ordinary commercial term for a receipt and is a lively way of bringing out the truth that these hypocrites have received all the reward they are going to get for this “good” deed. They sought the praise of men. They received the praise of men. There is nothing more to come. They cannot expect a heavenly reward in addition, for they have already been “paid in full.”
3. But is adversative; it sets the follower of Jesus in contrast to the hypocrites. The present tense of the verb pictures the act as in progress; while it is taking place there must be the utmost secrecy. The figure of the left hand being unaware of what the right hand is doing (again the tense points to the action in progress) is a striking expression for complete secrecy. And it forbids the giver to gloat over how good he or she is! “Christian giving is to be marked by self-sacrifice and self-forgetfulness, not by self-congratulation” (Stott, p. 131). The motive deep down is important.
4. So that introduces the purpose. In giving alms what is one really aiming at? Jesus says that the person must aim at doing this good deed in secret. But though almsgiving is done in the right way, that is, done without ostentation and in secret, that does not mean that it is entirely unnoticed. Your Father (an expression found again in the first three Gospels only in vv. 6 and 18; the plural is more common) sees it and takes notice of it (for Father see on 5:16). The verb may be used of various kinds of seeing, literal and metaphorical; here it indicates that human secrecy is no bar to God’s complete knowledge. God sees what is given and will take action, rewarding the donor. This does not mean that good deeds should be done with a view to obtaining a reward; that would mean that the deeds would no longer be good. It is a way of saying that in the end justice will be done.16 In our anxiety to make sure that we do not serve God for what we can get out of it we must not go to the other extreme and think of God as not caring what we do, or if he does, as not doing anything about it. God notices what his children do and responds to it. We should bear in mind the nature of the reward. To respond to love is to obtain a wonderful reward even if the reward cannot be quantified in any way nor regarded as merited. But it is very real. As Plummer puts it, “There is nothing degrading in working for the reward of a good conscience here, and of increased holiness hereafter, both enriched by God’s love and blessing” (p. 91). Cf. Gutzwiller, “God himself is the reward of Christians.”

b. Prayer, 6:5–15

5 “And whenever you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners in order that they may be seen by men; truly I tell you, they have their reward. 6 But you, whenever you are praying, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
7 “And when you are praying, do not babble like the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Therefore do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 You then pray like this:

‘Our Father in heaven,
may your name be kept holy,
10 may your kingdom come,
may your will be done,
as in heaven also on earth.
11 Give us today our daily bread,
12 and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And do not bring us into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.’

14 For if you forgive men their offenses, your heavenly Father will forgive you too; 15 but if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your offenses.”

It would seem that, just as was the case with helping the poor, so there was a tendency for people to use their prayers as a means of impressing others with their piety. But prayer is to be communion with God, not a means of increasing one’s reputation. To pray with a view to impressing people is wrongheaded. Jesus calls on praying people to consider what they are doing. They should concentrate on the matter in hand and forget the plaudits of people.
5. And links on another example. Whenever, as in verse 2, gives a general instruction suitable for all times of prayer. For pray see on 5:44; Matthew has a good deal to say about prayer. There is a change from the singular to the plural, but this does not seem to have great significance. You shall not be is another example of the use of the future with imperatival force; Jesus is not so much uttering a prophecy as giving a direction. For hypocrites see on verse 2; again the word signifies those who profess to do a pious action, but do so with their eye on people when they should be concerned with God only. For is not used here in a causal sense; it rather has a meaning like “seeing that.” Standing18 was a normal posture for prayer (cf. Mark 11:25), though when the worshiper wished to adopt an especially lowly position he might prostrate himself, as Jesus did in Gethsemane (26:39). People might pray kneeling (Acts 21:5) or sitting (2 Sam. 7:18). Clearly the posture is unimportant. As we have seen before, the synagogue (see on 4:23) was the center of community life as well as the place of worship. Here it is the place where God is worshipped, and it is singled out as a place where there would be many people. To pray standing in a synagogue was to take up a very public posture. The same must be said about praying on street corners. The junction of two streets would be a very public place and to pray there, in a place not especially given over to religious exercises and with many people to observe what was going on, was to court notice and to win the approbation of people who liked to observe religious activities in progress. There were prayers that were offered at prescribed times (cf. Ps. 55:17; Dan. 6:10; Acts 3:1), and it was not beyond the ingenuity of some to order their affairs so that they were in a public place at the time of prayer and thus “compelled” to pray where they would be seen. In order that introduces the purpose of the activity: the public exercise of which Jesus speaks was nominally aimed at addressing God, but it actually sought to achieve visibility to men (the masculine, of course, is inclusive and means “people”). The words about reward are repeated exactly from verse 2. Like the demonstrative givers of alms, those who pray merely to put on a show have been “paid in full” for their efforts. In all this Jesus is not condemning public prayer or praying in a public place; it is praying in such a way as to maximize its effect on other people that he condemns.
6. But is adversative and marks a contrast, while you is emphatic. The followers of Jesus will not pray in that demonstrative fashion. Whenever means that this is the way they must always pray. Jesus is not, of course, forbidding prayer in public, for example, in services of public worship or on other occasions when united praying is required. Rather, he is giving direction for one’s own prayers and indicating that they are to be undertaken with a single eye on God, not with a side glance at people who could be impressed. Go into your room22 (the word means an inner room) prescribes a private place for such prayer. The room itself is secure from observation from the street, and shutting the door secures it from the observation of those who have legitimate business in the house. Every precaution is to be taken that the prayer should be unobserved. “The secret of religion is religion in secret” (McNeile). Pray is a command; prayer is not simply desirable but necessary. In verse 4 the giving of alms is said to be in secret and the Father is said to see in secret, but here we have the interesting expression your Father who is in secret. The secret place will exclude other people but not God; he is there, in the secret place. The expression may also hint that the essential nature of God is hidden from those he created. For his seeing in secret and rewarding see on verse 4.
7. Jesus has significant teaching on the importance of conciseness in prayer. His followers are not to babble, where the unusual word forbids prolixity. To pray at length was regarded by the Gentiles as the way to make sure that one’s prayer was appreciated by deity, and there is no reason for thinking that this error was confined to the Gentiles; Jews could also err in this way (cf. Mark 12:40; the Talmud speaks of pious men who prayed for nine hours a day! Ber. 32b, though we should remember that Jews, too, could advocate short prayers, following Eccl. 5:2). Over against the conviction that the multitude of words indicates piety, Jesus points out that babbling is not the way to the heart of God. For Gentiles see on 5:47; it stands for Gentiles over against the Jews, the people of God. Such people do not understand the way to pray. For introduces the reason for their practice and that the content of their thinking. The Gentiles think of prayer as effective only if long (cf. 1 Kings 18:26–29). They agree that God hears and answers, but hold that he does so in proportion to their wordiness.
8. Therefore introduces the reason: there is a fallacy in the position of the Gentiles, which is obvious as soon as it is stated. Do not be like them means, of course, “Do not pray as they do,” “Do not make the error they make.” Jesus justifies this by going on to refer to the knowledge the Father has of his children. Before they offer any prayer, he knows exactly what their need is. They pray, not to inform the Father on matters of which he is ignorant, but to worship him.28 Jesus is not, of course, forbidding long prayers; he himself on occasion could pray all night (Luke 6:12) and on one occasion he taught his followers “that they should always pray and not grow weary” (Luke 18:1). Nor does he forbid repetition, for in Gethsemane he repeated his prayer (26:39–44). It is prayer based on the view that length will persuade God that he discourages.
9. Many recent scholars hold that the prayer that we commonly call “the Lord’s Prayer” should be understood in eschatological terms. In this Gospel we have already found that the kingdom of heaven has come near in the person of Jesus (3:2; 4:17), and the suggestion is that Jesus is teaching his followers a prayer that they should pray mindful of the fact that the end of all things is upon them. It may well be granted that these words are suitable for use in the last days as in others, but there is nothing in the language of the prayer that shows that those days alone are in view; if that is what Jesus meant, why did he not use at least one expression that unambiguously gives expression to it? The experience of the church throughout the centuries makes it abundantly clear that the prayer applies well to the here and now. We should understand it as a model prayer to guide disciples in their devotional life.
As Matthew records it, the giving of the prayer is quite spontaneous, but in Luke it comes in response to a question of the disciples. Jesus had been praying, and the disciples asked him to teach them to pray as John the Baptist had taught his followers. There are differences in the two versions of the prayer that we will notice as we come to them, but both forms “have simplicity, conciseness, intellectual clarity, and spiritual comprehensiveness” (Filson). Comparisons are made between the two versions, often with a view to determining which is the older. The usual conclusion is that on the whole the Lucan form is the more primitive, but that in some details Matthew has preserved what is nearer to the original. This enterprise seems to me mistaken.30 If Jesus seriously meant this to be a form to be used verbatim or as a model, it is highly unlikely that he would have enunciated it once only. And if it was to be used as a pattern rather than as a rigid form, nothing is more probable than that it should vary somewhat on different occasions. Like this32 indicates that what follows is meant as a guide, a model, rather than as a set form of words (cf. Zahn). This does not mean that the Lord’s Prayer may not usefully and meaningfully be used exactly as it is enunciated, but it points us to the truth that Jesus is giving us a model that may usefully be employed in fashioning other prayers. The present imperative pray points to the habitual practice. You is emphatic; in verses 5–8 we have seen that the Gentiles pray in an unacceptable fashion, as do the hypocrites among the Jews, but Jesus’ followers are set in sharp contrast. This was taken seriously by the early church, where the use of the prayer was confined to full members of the church (it appears to have been taught as part of baptismal instruction). Others were not to use it.
Jesus starts with the address, “Our Father in heaven” (see on 5:16; in Luke the prayer begins simply with “Father”). Our links the praying person to other believers; while the prayer may be used in private it is meant to be prayed in community, which means that it may have had a liturgical use from the first (though this, of course, does not mean that it cannot be profitably used in private prayer). Jesus addressed God simply as “Father” (11:25; Mark 14:36; Luke 23:46; John 17:1), and taught his followers to do the same. Bonnard points out that when God is called “Father” in the Synoptic Gospels the word is always on the lips of Jesus. This is not a commonplace of ancient religion, but a new understanding of the nature of God Jesus taught his disciples. It is characteristic that his followers should address God as “Father,” and distinctive because others, both Jews and Gentiles, even if they addressed God as “Father,” tended to begin their prayers with titles stressing God’s greatness, lordship, and the like.34 But, while the address expresses love and devotion, the one whom we call Father is at the same time supremely great, as the fact that he is in heaven reminds us (“God is in heaven, and you upon earth,” Eccl. 5:2). We should not miss the balance in this opening to the prayer. We address God intimately as Father, but we immediately recognize his infinite greatness with the addition in heaven.
The name in antiquity meant a good deal more than it does with us. We use it for a personal designation, and that is about all. But in antiquity the name was held to be bound up with the person in some way;37 the name and the qualities associated with the name went together. Thus in the opening of this Gospel we find that the baby was to be called Jesus, for he would save his people from their sins (1:21); the name and the activity went together. The prayer then means more than that we should use the divine name with suitable reverence. It includes that, and is thus a standing witness against every age that uses the name of God (or Jesus or Christ) lightly in oaths or jests. But it also means that we should be reverent before all that God is and stands for. If God’s name is kept holy, it is held in proper reverence. This prayer is not so much a petition that God will do some great act that will show everyone who and what he is, as a prayer that he will bring people to a proper attitude toward him. It expresses an aspiration that he who is holy will be seen to be holy and treated throughout his creation as holy.
10. The kingdom of God is a most important concept in this Gospel (see on 3:2). There is a sense in which the kingdom is a present reality, but here it is the future kingdom that is in mind. The petition looks to the coming of the time when all evil will be done away and people will gladly submit to the divine Sovereign (cf. Rev. 11:15). Davies and Allison point out that “kingdom of God” is never the subject of the verb “come” in Jewish writings or in the New Testament outside the Gospels; they find here the thought of the “coming” of God (which, of course, includes the coming of his kingdom). The prayer looks for God to take action, not for worshipers to bring the kingdom into being (cf. Stendahl, “It asks for the establishment of the Kingdom of God, by God for us, not by us for God”). The prayer looks for the full realization of all that the kingdom means and for the will of God to be perfectly done (the words your will be done are absent from the Lukan version). The word will may be used of the act of willing (e.g., Rom. 1:10) or of the thing that is willed to happen; that which takes place may be done either by oneself (e.g., Eph. 1:9) or by others (21:31). It is this latter use that we see here. The prayer looks for the perfect accomplishment of what God wills, and that in the deeds of those he has created as well as in what he does himself. It points to no passive acquiescence but to an active identification of the worshiper with the working out of the divine purpose; if we pray that way we must live that way. We see something of the cost of praying this prayer by reflecting on the way Jesus used it (Luke 22:42). In heaven God’s will is perfectly done now, for there is nothing in heaven to hinder it, and the prayer looks for a similar state of affairs here on earth.
11. Until now the petitions have concerned the great causes of God and his kingdom; at this point Jesus’ attention moves to the personal needs of the worshiper. It is interesting that immediately following the prayer for the perfect establishment of the kingdom of heaven and the accomplishment of the will of God we have a prayer for bread here and now. This was so incredible to many in the early church that they spiritualized the expression and understood it of Holy Communion or “the invisible bread of the Word of God” (Augustine, p. 42; he finds other meanings as well). In modern times we often find scholars claiming that the expression refers to the messianic banquet in the coming age. Both miss the point that Jesus takes seriously our physical needs. The word translated daily is difficult, but a survey of the evidence indicates that the ancient understanding “daily” fits the facts as well as any; “for the coming day” has essentially the same meaning. The prayer prayed in the morning seeks bread for the day opening out before the praying person, while prayed at night it seeks bread for the coming day. Both ways of taking the word see it as looking to God for the supply of one’s immediate needs, not those of the indefinite future. Jesus says that we should do no more than ask for food sufficient for the day on the day. Give recognizes that our basic food is not the result of our unaided endeavor; it is the gift of God, while today is important as pointing to a day-by-day reliance on God. The prayer encourages a continuing dependence on God; it does not countenance a situation in which the disciple asks God for a supply for a lengthy period, after which prayer he can go on for some time in forgetfulness of God. He depends on God constantly, and this dependence is expressed in this prayer.
12. Forgive (see on 12:31) recognizes that sinning puts people in the wrong with God and that only he can cancel out the offense and pardon it. The offense is here seen as a debt (in Luke 11:4 we have “sins”), which recognizes that we owe to God our full obedience. When we do not pay it we are debtors to God, and only he can remit the debt. The prayer for forgiveness is qualified by as we also have forgiven our debtors. This must surely be taken as an aspiration rather than a limitation, or none of us would be forgiven; our forgivenesses are so imperfect. But the prayer recognizes that we have no right to seek forgiveness for our own sins if we are withholding forgiveness from others, and perhaps even that we cannot really seek it (cf. Buttrick, if anyone says, “I’ll never forgive you!” that person “is not penitently aware of his sins, but only vengefully aware of another man’s sins”; Robinson remarks, “The spirit open to receive love is of necessity open to bestow love”). We also is emphatic; it underlines the significance of forgiving action on the part of those seeking forgiveness. Have forgiven47 expresses more than a resolution for future action. The person seeking forgiveness must first have taken forgiving action with respect to those who have sinned against him; “as 5:23–24 shows, mere good intentions are not enough” (Schweizer). We should notice that it is debtors that are forgiven, not “debts.” Both, of course, are involved, but it is the person on whom the emphasis falls. Debtor may be used of literal, monetary debts (18:24), or it may be used metaphorically of various kinds of obligation, and of those who owe something to people (here) or to God (Luke 13:4). Sin may be viewed in any one of a variety of ways. Here it is seen as arising from the fact that we have obligations to God. When we fail to do what we should, we owe God a debt and are in need of help, namely the cancellation of the debt because we cannot repay it.
13. The big question here is the meaning of the word I have translated temptation. The word has the basic meaning “test,” and, when used of Satan’s testing of people with a view to their failing in the test (see the note on the corresponding verb, 4:1), it comes to mean “temptation.” It has usually been understood in this way in this prayer (KJV; so NIV, etc.). But in recent years there has been an increasing tendency to interpret it as pointing to the fiery trial associated with the coming of the End, and it is taken that way in translations like “do not put us to the test” (REB). Against this is the absence of the definite article (there is no “the” in the Greek); the expression seems to point to testing in general rather than one specific test. In any case, no evidence seems to be cited that the word, by itself, signifies the test at the climax of all things. Others understand it as a time of trial rather than of temptation, “do not bring us to hard testing” (GNB). The eschatological meaning is unlikely, but a prayer that we may not undergo difficult tests is a possibility. On the whole the traditional view that the word means “temptation” seems most probable, though not, of course, in the sense that the worshiper may feel that God will present him with temptation (cf. Jas. 1:13). God tempts no one. But the worshiper knows his own weakness and in this prayer seeks to be kept far from anything that may bring him to sin.49 But is the strong adversative; it sets the following course of action in marked contrast to the preceding. There is a question whether we should take the final expression in the verse in the sense “the evil one” (NIV and most recent translations) or “evil” (Knox): the Greek could mean either. It is argued that in the first century it is more likely that the evil one would be in mind than a general reference to evil, but the translation “evil” may be supported by appeal to 5:39 where the expression cannot mean “the evil one.” It could also be contended that to take it as meaning “the evil one” would make the two parts of the verse say much the same thing and further that this would mean there is “no express prayer for deliverance from moral evil” (Glover). Perhaps the decisive point is one made by Hill: “since neither Hebrew nor Aramaic uses ‘the evil (one)’ to denote Satan, it is probably better to regard the word as neuter.…” Either way of taking the expression makes good sense, but on the whole it seems that the reference is to “evil.”
In the form in which the prayer is commonly used it concludes with the doxology “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever and ever. Amen.” This is lacking in the oldest MSS (in Luke as in Matthew), though it has considerable early attestation. But it may be argued that it is unlikely that a first-century Jewish prayer should conclude without a doxology and that its absence in many MSS may be because it was simply assumed, while in others it was explicitly included. On the whole it seems probable that it was a liturgical addition made early in the life of the church, but we should not regard this as certain. The case for the doxology is stronger than many students assume.
14. For introduces a reason for praying in the way Jesus has just outlined: first, those who forgive in the way suggested in the prayer will find forgiveness themselves, whereas those who do not forgive will not be forgiven. The conditional implies nothing as to the fulfilment or otherwise of the condition; it simply suggests a hypothetical possibility. Men, of course, is quite general and has no particular reference to adult members of the male sex; it means “people.” Offenses are activities in which other people really take action against us in some way; forgiveness of such sins is not automatic. But Jesus expects it of his people, and he assures them that such forgiveness means that the forgiveness of God is certain. It is not that the act of forgiving merits an eternal reward, but rather it is evidence that the grace of God is at work in the forgiving person and that that same grace will bring him forgiveness in due course.
15. But is the adversative conjunction that introduces the other side of the coin. The change that puts offenses in the second clause in this verse instead of in the first clause as in verse 14 is largely stylistic, but it perhaps emphasizes the activity of forgiving rather than the nature of the offenses. Forgiveness is important for the followers of Jesus, whereas the nature of the offenses committed against them is not. Jesus is saying that to fail to forgive others is to demonstrate that one has not felt the saving touch of God.

c. Fasting, 6:16–18

16 “And whenever you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, putting on a gloomy look, for they disfigure their faces so that they may appear to men as fasting; truly I tell you, they have their reward. 17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 so that you do not appear to men as fasting, but to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will recompense you.”

This is another Matthean section without parallels. It fits in with the kind of teaching given earlier in the chapter where the demand is for complete sincerity in praying and giving. So is it with fasting. This is no concern of anyone except the fasting person and God. Anyone who fasts should take care to keep it that way; he should make no display of his fasting. Jesus and his disciples apparently fasted rarely, if at all (9:14–15, though cf. 4:2).
16. The one fast prescribed in the law was the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29–31; “afflict yourselves” is generally understood to include fasting). But other fasts came to be observed (Zech. 8:19; cf. Neh. 9:1; Ps. 35:13, etc.; private fasting was also practiced, Neh. 1:4; Dan. 9:3; for New Testament times cf. Luke 18:12). Whenever indicates that people will fast, but leaves the times open. No particular significance is attached to fasting here, as though the fast were for a specific object; it is simply a normal religious, disciplinary activity, one of three pious practices held in special esteem among the Jews (with almsgiving and prayer). But Jesus says that whenever it takes place certain precautions should be observed, for fasting readily gives an opening for those who like to make a show of their piety (for hypocrites see on v. 2). Fasters could put on a gloomy look to go with their physical discomfort, or they might disfigure56 their faces. It is not quite certain what form the disfigurement took, but evidently some act of disfigurement was recognized as a common accompaniment of fasting so that these people not only fasted but appeared to fast; they made it plain to those who saw them that they were engaged in a serious and onerous religious duty. They were more interested in appearing to fast than in the actual fasting itself. Such people, Jesus says, have their reward (i.e., they have received in full all the reward they are going to get; see on verses 1–2). They aimed at making an impression rather than at religious excellence. They succeeded in their aim and should not expect any further recompense than the applause they had attained.
17. But you puts the follower of Jesus in contrast; that way is not for the disciple. Jesus implies that those who follow him will fast from time to time, but he says nothing about frequency, occasion, or method. He is concerned only with the motive behind the fasting and indeed primarily with the requirement that fasting be done secretly, as a matter between the religious person and God. So the faster is told anoint your head; this points to a normal social custom of the day, but evidently those who fasted sometimes omitted the practice. So with washing the face. It is pleasant to be clean, and evidently it was felt by some who fasted that they should forego this pleasure. And, of course, an untended face is very obvious.
18. The purpose of this (so that) is that those fasting should not make a display of their disciplinary activity, The hypocrites fasted in order to make an impression on others (“a sacred means is being corrupted by an unholy purpose,” Gutzwiller); Jesus prescribes the exact opposite: his followers are not to appear to fast. Fasting is a matter between them and the Father. The thought of being “in secret” is repeated from verses 4 and 6, though with a slightly different vocabulary. With fasting, as with almsgiving and prayer, it is important that the activity be done in secret. As with those activities the Father will recompense the person who fasts rightly (in the end justice will be done), but the emphasis is not on the recompense; it is on keeping one’s religious activities religious and not making them a means of self-glorification.

Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew (pp. 135–151). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.

Graham Owen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550460#Comment_550460

If some versions of the Bible differ on interpretation, please tell me why.

For the New Testament you might like:

https://www.logos.com/product/2190/a-textual-commentary-on-the-greek-new-testament

It is quite technical but does help you to see the textual differences.

I am not aware of a similar text for the Old Testament

When dealing with the original languages, I would love it if the author includes transliterated words

Have you looked at the interlinears, whilst not favoured by many here and certainly not a replacement for knowing the original languages they do help you to see some what is happening in the Greek and Hebrew. My main caution here is that the interlinear is as much a trap door that leads to a fallacy as it is a window into the real meaning.

I would like a commentary that introduces me to new (to me) thoughts and ideas on scripture so that I can discuss them intelligently when someone mentions them during study.

You might also want to look outside of commentaries for this and look at books like:

https://www.logos.com/product/2271/revelation-four-views

https://www.logos.com/product/16634/understanding-four-views-on-the-lords-supper

Another source of ideas would be to look at Systematic Theologies from different Christian traditions, remember that you can locate how they use scripture by searching using the cited tools. Wayne Grudem has one that tries to look at different approaches:

https://www.logos.com/product/8413/systematic-theology-an-introduction-to-biblical-doctrine

I have it in hard copy but not in Logos so can't print a sample.

Hope the information overload helps.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550649#Comment_550649

One thing these examples illustrate is 'verses' vs 'chunks'.

I really don't know if maybe the issue is just user preference vs type of study.

But I always end up not using 'chunk' type commentaries (commentary text using verse ranges under a pericope name). Most often I'm in the Bible and have a question on a verse. Not a section. I don't mind a commentary grouping verses (the norm). But I want specific depth by verse.

Oxford is a good example, where it has good discussion, but rarely verse-level. Utley's just the opposite. I like his verse-by-verse; he also brings up issues.

I don't see this distinction much on the forums or even commentary review-sites.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/550660#Comment_550660

One thing that might help too is providing a word document attachment instead of copying and pasting big chunks, that way the thread won't get so cluttered and force one to scroll way up or way down to read the rest of the posts.

DAL